header-logo header-logo

Insurance triggered

05 April 2012
Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Asbestos ruling restores causation for mesothelioma claims

Insurance policy claims for the fatal disease of mesothelioma are triggered by the date of exposure to asbestos and not the date of injury many years later, the Supreme Court has held.

The ruling, in BAI v Durham [2012] UKSC 14, also known as the “EL Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation”, re-instates the longstanding practice of causation where the employee is covered by the employers’ liability insurance if the exposure that caused their disease took place during its term.

This was common industry practice until the mesothelioma case of Bolton v MMI [2006] EWCA Civ 50, where injury was held to occur at the point where the disease began to manifest. This shifted the insurer’s responsibility from the time of exposure to the time when the tumour developed.

In Durham, the justices unanimously held that the insurance policy terms of “sustained” and “contracted” mean the same as “caused” by exposure to asbestos.

Lord Mance, giving the lead judgment, said the courts should “avoid over-concentration on the meaning of single words and phrases viewed in isolation and look at the insurance contracts more broadly”.

Karl Tonks, vice-president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) says: “Finally, after six years of farce, what had previously been clearly understood has been confirmed, that the insurer at the time the worker was exposed to asbestos should be pursued for compensation.

“Mesothelioma is a bitter reminder of our industrial past and it is time more support is given to these people who are suffering and dying as a consequence of simply going to work.

“Victims have been waiting for nearly two years for action on this from the government, after the previous administration agreed that an insurance fund of last resort should be established.”

Alison McCormick, who acted as junior counsel in the lead case of Durham, said the judgment provides “much needed consistency, certainty and clarity”.

Issue: 7509 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll